[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by George Elder on October 8, 2018, 5:05:18, in reply to "Anyway
You have not answered any of my points concerning the inappropriateness of the comparison between the scuttling of ships of the HSF and the Bismark. Instead, you seem to be agreeing with me in places and then cite D&G as support that the scuttling protocols could not have been complete--not that they needed to be given the Bismarck's situation. We seem to be in general agreement that the ship had ample water aboard and great damage before the scuttling began, unlike was the case with the HSF. The red-herring of the detached stern was tossed in for reasons unknown, for that area of the ship is distal to the inner raft that was keeping the Bismarck afloat and had been compromised well before the final battle even began. Study GM and GZ and recognize that when these stability measures are already seriously compromised it doesn't take much additional flooding from scuttling for a ship to become unstable. As for your sensibilities and sensitive soul...surely, you don't think I care. You troop those traits out all too often, sort of like folks who wear their underwear on the outside.
The controversy arose becauseáBismarckádid not succumb toáa 90-minute bombardment by two battleships and two heavy cruisers that produced around 300-400 hits. Admiral Sir John Tovey had to abandon the engagement for lack of fuel, calling for any ship with torpedoes to finish off the blazing wreck.áBismarckásank at 1039 hours, a few minutes after being struck by torpedoes from HMSáDorsetshire. The controversy erupted becauseáat 0920 hours, just 33 minutes after the final battle began and 69 minutes beforeáBismarckásank, two heavy shells penetrated the machinery spaces. Thisáprompted the XO, Hans Oels, to orderáscuttling chargesáset and firedáľ 6 sticks of dynamite in each engine room. However, a study by US naval analystsáW. Garzke and R. O. Dulin shows the chargesáwere not fired in every case because of water inflows into the engineering spaces caused by battle damage. Indeed, by 0930 the ship was already wallowing from the amount of water on board, some of it deliberately introduced to counter-flood after battle damage three days earlier in the Denmark Strait.
Bismarck was sunk due to battle damage recieved from the Royal Navy ,she was already sinking before any scuttling charges may have gone off .
The fact the detached stern section cannot be proven if it left the ship during battle or after initial sinking is a shame,there is a piece of stern wreckage on the seabed from the seperation point that has a 16inch penetration hole on its edge.
I am more than happy to discuss this history something I have been quietly researching for years and content to compare anything to gain knowledge ,so I politely request you refrain from "telling" me where to go,what to compare or whatever,your condascending tone is not appreciated. If you think something is pointless then perhaps you should refrain from wasting your time on it.
Unless you like comparing apples and oranges, don't even go there! The Bismarck had already taken on several thousand tons of water BEFORE the scuttling charges were blown. Moreover, the only thing keeping the ship afloat was the lower raft, the very place the charges compromised. The upper raft was riddled. The scuttling of the HSF involved undamaged and intact ships, vessels wherein progressive flooding had to take the ships down far more slowly. This feeble comparison canard between the Bismarck and HSF ships has been running around for some time, and I find it silly and pointless.
After WW1 it took months of secret ,preparations to get the interned German High Seas Fleet ready to be scuttled , and even with all that preparation to sink them as fast as possible it still took hours for some of them to go down.
In 1941 we have a far more robust battleship in Bismarck fully at action stations with compartments sealed up to "stop" her sinking.
The bombardment Bismarck received was bewildering to imagine, the command crew were killed fairly early on in the battle and she was effectively silenced not long after, she was already visibly down at the stern at this point.
So with the command crew dead, the ship a shambles, we are to believe an organised attempt was made to scuttle a 50,000 ton battleship at action stations and she went down in under 30 minutes from that point ? It is not as easy as "opening seacocks", there are safety protocols to get around and many watertight doors to open up again on a ship that was STILL under bombardment with little command structure left.
Bismarck was going down due to damage sustained from the Royal Navy , I see no other reason than that ..
I followed a link to the Bismarck book coming out in December.
In the description it says
"Battleship Bismarck has finally resolved some of the major questions such as, 'Who sank the Bismarck, the British or the Germans?'"
Why is there any doubt that the British sank the Bismarck?
To say the Germans sank the Bismarck is like saying the Americans sank the Lexington.
SteelNavy.Com Home Page